When the gasoline burns it emits 4.71 tons of CO2 so the 2 tons used cuts net emissions to 2.71

They may be different processes but we shouldn’t get too excited till we know how much photon energy is needed to make the fuel. CO2 is low energy spent fuel.

Oh, well…

I hope to have a clear analysis of costs for the electricity generation using CO2 to methanol process for the Cool Proposal along with the forecast of economic impact. Jobs are my concern as well

This transition you are talking about will be massively expensive and cost many jobs, it will slow civilising efforts in the developed world and make people even further dependent on welfare from the State. This human thirst for unity and togetherness is perverted when it seeks its centre in the State, you’ll find the global . .. . . whatever becoming more and more coercive as the facts count against the ideology – they are moving fast.

What is through and through an empirical question has not been shown to many people’s satisfaction and questioners are being silenced. There are much greater threats to civilisation and lies like these are the perfect way to shield us from the truly pertinent questions.

A methanol economy is a great way to achieve energy independence, reduce pollution, help developing economies wean themselves off oil cartel dependence and increase family budgets and ability to raise children by utilising our natural resources cleanly and economically.

I believe Prof. Plimer is correct again and a dispassionate rather than fevered ideological movement stance is utterly necessary at this time. We are in a very dangerous position because of shoddy thinking in finance, we cannot afford shoddy thinking in energy policy given it touches virtually ever aspect of our lives.

People have to do serious business with thinkers like Prof. Plimer and the thousands of scientist in solidarity with him. This has not been done to date.

This catalysis breakthrough is fantastic news. Why if I don’t believe the hype around anthropogenic GW then CC now ‘Carbon’! pollution? It will provide a sop for the alarmists so we can utilise our coal, do away with fealty to nasty oil producing regimes, strengthen the family budget, and improve our balance of payments – ie ENERGY INDEPENDENCE! No more export of Islamic terrorism woo hoo!

Fischer-Tropsch coal to liquids (methanol) doesn’t burn the coal but heats it so the flue gas lacks particulates etc and so is very pure and concentrated CO2 – perfect for converting it all to more methanol.

Methanol integrates wonderfully with commercial size renewables like wind and solar. Excess off peak energy – electrolysis of water – hydrogen gas to nearby coal deposit or CO2 source – methanol.

Methanol dissolves in water and bacteria eat it up so no more oil spills – much cleaner burning than petroleum liquid fuels, and provides more power in current I.C. Engines. Only minor modification to petrol stations.

Methanol fuel cells are soon going to power consumer electronics (see latest laptops) and methanol is a suitable precursor to virtually every petrochemical that is the basis of our modern economy.

Lets get to it. CNX and LNC have a head start lets follow their lead.

P.s. Love Permaculture have influenced loads of friends and own ‘Global Gardener’ Keep up the good work guys.

P.p.s Be careful of being co-opted into global climate warming carbon change or whatever its called fashions (has all the hallmarks of counterfeit religion now) re: Permaculture.org’s long term credibility.

Joseph, the price of 3 cents is just a raw cost of producing 1 liter of methanol. If you convert it to petrol, than the cost would increase to 8-11 cents (estimate). To calculate the price at the gas station, you’ll need to add costs of distribution, profits, taxes etc.

Dave, as far as I’ve learned there is not much energy needed for the process. That’s the whole point. Otherwise the cost of energy would make it too expensive.

Toby, I agree that the term “special light” is not the most fortunate one (my mistake). It means: a source of photons in the UV range providing optimum color temperature for the reaction. For a non-technical reader it doesn’t help much, so I decided to simplify it. You’re right that since all details are not published it leaves room for speculations and uncertainty. The official publication in the scientific journal was delayed because the scientists decided to patent the technology first. I hope that professor Nazimek will clarify all technical issues himself soon.

And the budding entrepeneur wants public funding for his *patented* world-changing mystery technology. How many times have we heard that before?

AS Dave says, for at least minimal credibility we need to know the energy and material inputs, and yields. My guess is the “special light” is UV (ultraviolet) which is artificially generated (requiring oodles of energy), the mystery catalyst contains Copper+Titanium Dioxide and the conversion process is less efficient than already existing technology or photosynthesis. If it is really patented, at least give us the patent number.

Please don’t waste people’s time with this stuff until the basic claims have been aired in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and been independently verified, and we have some reasonable idea of the efficiencies and materials involved. Even if it’s proposed in good faith, there are many plausible schemes that never work out because the energy numbers never quite add up.